From: richalivingston@gmail.com   
      
   What you are really debating is the process of science.  In order to do   
   anything we must have some framework of ideas we are working with, that   
   we assume are valid.  In order for  alarge group of scientist to work   
   together they must all talk the same "language", i.e. have the same   
   framework of assumed theory.  Otherwise we are debating kinetic energy   
   vs phlogiston.  That just doesn't work.   
      
   Just because we have an assumed theoretical framework doesn't mean that   
   it is correct and cast in concrete, only that it is the current best   
   understanding.  As more experiments are performed and more physical   
   facts revealed we may come to realize that some aspect of our assumed   
   theoretical framework is not quite correct.  Or someone may come up with   
   a different framework that is compelling enough that everyone adopts it.   
    Examples include quantum mechanics, relativity, Maxwell's Equations,   
   Newton's Laws, etc.   
      
   It is the task of the revolutionary to convince the mainstream consensus   
   that the new idea is better.  That is usually a bit hard because so many   
   people become emotionally invested in the consensus framework, but if   
   the new idea truely has value and is supported by experimental evidence   
   than it will eventually prevail.   
      
   Rich L.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)